this. I think that *everyone* has to give a little - the very picky eaters (or people with allergies or other dietary requirements), have to sometimes be willing to eat at a more adventurous place (or at least be willing to *sit* there), and people who are adventurous might have to sit at the Gold Arches a few times.

Not me. On vacation, I don't eat what I can get at home.

I don't know, i'm not a fan of the golden arches, but if i were traveling with friends, and *everyone* was being reasonable, I would trade off a few fast food meals if they would go for a few adventurous/local/ethnic. or at least, if they would sit with me in Chez LocalEthnic, I would sit in GoldenArches.

As Thipu and others pointed out, not everyone is *just* picky- sometimes there are religious/health/ethical reasons for not eating X or Y. If someone is being SS about it, that is one thing. But if everyone is being considerate and reasonable - then yes, I would trade a few Golden Arches/Pizza etc for a few Local/Ethnic

Another thing to consider is what I can only describe as "homesickness". Sometimes, when you are travelling in an area that is extremely foreign to you, it can just get overwhelming to always be doing things that are unfamiliar. At first, it's probably awesome and you dive right into everything. But there might come a point where you or your travelling companion can't take it anymore and you/he/she just wants a little touch of the familiar. Of course, they should phrase it that way and be polite about it, but in that case, please cut them a little slack.

That's my McDonald's story.

And Snowdragon, please remember that NOBODY has been advocating that the McDonald's eaters should always drag everybody to McDonald's.

The phrase "a few times" was very specifically inserted--please don't assume hyperbole that doesn't even exist.

I think the major point we all agree on is that BOTH sides of the spectrum should be accommodated at one time or another.

No, we don't someone's reluctance to try new stuff, ethics, whatever, should never be dictating where others go to eat. Someone wants to go to McD's they can go - but under no circumstances would I tolerate, even once, being told I have to 'accommodate" that by eating there or even wasting time sitting there while someone else ate there. Splitting up is an option, being limited to what I can eat at a given meal because of someone else's unwillingness to make to the compromise of splitting up - is never going to be acceptable. Not to me and it seems on this thread I am not the only one who would object.

So... the other people are supposed to compromise by splitting up, but you won't compromise by eating a food that isn't your first choice?

this. I think that *everyone* has to give a little - the very picky eaters (or people with allergies or other dietary requirements), have to sometimes be willing to eat at a more adventurous place (or at least be willing to *sit* there), and people who are adventurous might have to sit at the Gold Arches a few times.

Not me. On vacation, I don't eat what I can get at home.

I don't know, i'm not a fan of the golden arches, but if i were traveling with friends, and *everyone* was being reasonable, I would trade off a few fast food meals if they would go for a few adventurous/local/ethnic. or at least, if they would sit with me in Chez LocalEthnic, I would sit in GoldenArches.

As Thipu and others pointed out, not everyone is *just* picky- sometimes there are religious/health/ethical reasons for not eating X or Y. If someone is being SS about it, that is one thing. But if everyone is being considerate and reasonable - then yes, I would trade a few Golden Arches/Pizza etc for a few Local/Ethnic

Another thing to consider is what I can only describe as "homesickness". Sometimes, when you are travelling in an area that is extremely foreign to you, it can just get overwhelming to always be doing things that are unfamiliar. At first, it's probably awesome and you dive right into everything. But there might come a point where you or your travelling companion can't take it anymore and you/he/she just wants a little touch of the familiar. Of course, they should phrase it that way and be polite about it, but in that case, please cut them a little slack.

That's my McDonald's story.

And Snowdragon, please remember that NOBODY has been advocating that the McDonald's eaters should always drag everybody to McDonald's.

The phrase "a few times" was very specifically inserted--please don't assume hyperbole that doesn't even exist.

I think the major point we all agree on is that BOTH sides of the spectrum should be accommodated at one time or another.

No, we don't someone's reluctance to try new stuff, ethics, whatever, should never be dictating where others go to eat. Someone wants to go to McD's they can go - but under no circumstances would I tolerate, even once, being told I have to 'accommodate" that by eating there or even wasting time sitting there while someone else ate there. Splitting up is an option, being limited to what I can eat at a given meal because of someone else's unwillingness to make to the compromise of splitting up - is never going to be acceptable. Not to me and it seems on this thread I am not the only one who would object.

So... the other people are supposed to compromise by splitting up, but you won't compromise by eating a food that isn't your first choice?

Nope, I won't. their preferences do not get to control anyone else. Splitting up means that they get their food choices and I get mine. At least one of the other people in the OP would not split up, they wanted what they wanted, and would whine about it if they did not get it. I don't travel to another country to eat at McD's - heck I don't eat at McD's more than a couple times a year at home - but I should do it a few times over the course of a vacation? Sorry, no. Every time I eat at a McD's takes away one more once in a life time experience from me - why does Ms Limited get to do that, simply because they can't order a Big Mac on their own.?

this. I think that *everyone* has to give a little - the very picky eaters (or people with allergies or other dietary requirements), have to sometimes be willing to eat at a more adventurous place (or at least be willing to *sit* there), and people who are adventurous might have to sit at the Gold Arches a few times.

Not me. On vacation, I don't eat what I can get at home.

I don't know, i'm not a fan of the golden arches, but if i were traveling with friends, and *everyone* was being reasonable, I would trade off a few fast food meals if they would go for a few adventurous/local/ethnic. or at least, if they would sit with me in Chez LocalEthnic, I would sit in GoldenArches.

As Thipu and others pointed out, not everyone is *just* picky- sometimes there are religious/health/ethical reasons for not eating X or Y. If someone is being SS about it, that is one thing. But if everyone is being considerate and reasonable - then yes, I would trade a few Golden Arches/Pizza etc for a few Local/Ethnic

Another thing to consider is what I can only describe as "homesickness". Sometimes, when you are travelling in an area that is extremely foreign to you, it can just get overwhelming to always be doing things that are unfamiliar. At first, it's probably awesome and you dive right into everything. But there might come a point where you or your travelling companion can't take it anymore and you/he/she just wants a little touch of the familiar. Of course, they should phrase it that way and be polite about it, but in that case, please cut them a little slack.

That's my McDonald's story.

And Snowdragon, please remember that NOBODY has been advocating that the McDonald's eaters should always drag everybody to McDonald's.

The phrase "a few times" was very specifically inserted--please don't assume hyperbole that doesn't even exist.

I think the major point we all agree on is that BOTH sides of the spectrum should be accommodated at one time or another.

No, we don't someone's reluctance to try new stuff, ethics, whatever, should never be dictating where others go to eat. Someone wants to go to McD's they can go - but under no circumstances would I tolerate, even once, being told I have to 'accommodate" that by eating there or even wasting time sitting there while someone else ate there. Splitting up is an option, being limited to what I can eat at a given meal because of someone else's unwillingness to make to the compromise of splitting up - is never going to be acceptable. Not to me and it seems on this thread I am not the only one who would object.

So... the other people are supposed to compromise by splitting up, but you won't compromise by eating a food that isn't your first choice?

For me, this would depend on circumstances - I wouldn't want to eat in McDs but for a *pleasant* and *considerate* travelling companion, or one who is homesick, I'll* nurse a cup of their coffee while that friend eats. And I would hope that they'd be willing to do the same if I want to eat at Awesome Local Eatery. I'd see it as a way of spending a bit of time with thwat person, not as 'wasting' time.

I don't think that a total lack of willingness to compromise on either side is reasonable.

this. I think that *everyone* has to give a little - the very picky eaters (or people with allergies or other dietary requirements), have to sometimes be willing to eat at a more adventurous place (or at least be willing to *sit* there), and people who are adventurous might have to sit at the Gold Arches a few times.

Not me. On vacation, I don't eat what I can get at home.

I don't know, i'm not a fan of the golden arches, but if i were traveling with friends, and *everyone* was being reasonable, I would trade off a few fast food meals if they would go for a few adventurous/local/ethnic. or at least, if they would sit with me in Chez LocalEthnic, I would sit in GoldenArches.

As Thipu and others pointed out, not everyone is *just* picky- sometimes there are religious/health/ethical reasons for not eating X or Y. If someone is being SS about it, that is one thing. But if everyone is being considerate and reasonable - then yes, I would trade a few Golden Arches/Pizza etc for a few Local/Ethnic

Another thing to consider is what I can only describe as "homesickness". Sometimes, when you are travelling in an area that is extremely foreign to you, it can just get overwhelming to always be doing things that are unfamiliar. At first, it's probably awesome and you dive right into everything. But there might come a point where you or your travelling companion can't take it anymore and you/he/she just wants a little touch of the familiar. Of course, they should phrase it that way and be polite about it, but in that case, please cut them a little slack.

That's my McDonald's story.

And Snowdragon, please remember that NOBODY has been advocating that the McDonald's eaters should always drag everybody to McDonald's.

The phrase "a few times" was very specifically inserted--please don't assume hyperbole that doesn't even exist.

I think the major point we all agree on is that BOTH sides of the spectrum should be accommodated at one time or another.

No, we don't someone's reluctance to try new stuff, ethics, whatever, should never be dictating where others go to eat. Someone wants to go to McD's they can go - but under no circumstances would I tolerate, even once, being told I have to 'accommodate" that by eating there or even wasting time sitting there while someone else ate there. Splitting up is an option, being limited to what I can eat at a given meal because of someone else's unwillingness to make to the compromise of splitting up - is never going to be acceptable. Not to me and it seems on this thread I am not the only one who would object.

So... the other people are supposed to compromise by splitting up, but you won't compromise by eating a food that isn't your first choice?

Nope, I won't. their preferences do not get to control anyone else. Splitting up means that they get their food choices and I get mine. At least one of the other people in the OP would not split up, they wanted what they wanted, and would whine about it if they did not get it. I don't travel to another country to eat at McD's - heck I don't eat at McD's more than a couple times a year at home - but I should do it a few times over the course of a vacation? Sorry, no. Every time I eat at a McD's takes away one more once in a life time experience from me - why does Ms Limited get to do that, simply because they can't order a Big Mac on their own.?

In this case I think you should not travel with someone like that.

Why does your preference for local fare get to make your (I assume) friend eat alone throughout the entire trip. It boggles me that you don't see you're taking the exact same stance on the opposite end of the spectrum. I think in most reasonable circumstances, all sides should compromise some.

If I take food out of the equation and make it about two friends vacationing, one who likes excursions an one who likes to lay on the beach. If one's aversion to the other type of activity was so strong, they should not vacation together. But if they do vacation together, both should compromise so that both get experiences they enjoy. Go on an excursion one day, lay on the beach the next.

this. I think that *everyone* has to give a little - the very picky eaters (or people with allergies or other dietary requirements), have to sometimes be willing to eat at a more adventurous place (or at least be willing to *sit* there), and people who are adventurous might have to sit at the Gold Arches a few times.

Not me. On vacation, I don't eat what I can get at home.

I don't know, i'm not a fan of the golden arches, but if i were traveling with friends, and *everyone* was being reasonable, I would trade off a few fast food meals if they would go for a few adventurous/local/ethnic. or at least, if they would sit with me in Chez LocalEthnic, I would sit in GoldenArches.

As Thipu and others pointed out, not everyone is *just* picky- sometimes there are religious/health/ethical reasons for not eating X or Y. If someone is being SS about it, that is one thing. But if everyone is being considerate and reasonable - then yes, I would trade a few Golden Arches/Pizza etc for a few Local/Ethnic

Another thing to consider is what I can only describe as "homesickness". Sometimes, when you are travelling in an area that is extremely foreign to you, it can just get overwhelming to always be doing things that are unfamiliar. At first, it's probably awesome and you dive right into everything. But there might come a point where you or your travelling companion can't take it anymore and you/he/she just wants a little touch of the familiar. Of course, they should phrase it that way and be polite about it, but in that case, please cut them a little slack.

That's my McDonald's story.

And Snowdragon, please remember that NOBODY has been advocating that the McDonald's eaters should always drag everybody to McDonald's.

The phrase "a few times" was very specifically inserted--please don't assume hyperbole that doesn't even exist.

I think the major point we all agree on is that BOTH sides of the spectrum should be accommodated at one time or another.

No, we don't someone's reluctance to try new stuff, ethics, whatever, should never be dictating where others go to eat. Someone wants to go to McD's they can go - but under no circumstances would I tolerate, even once, being told I have to 'accommodate" that by eating there or even wasting time sitting there while someone else ate there. Splitting up is an option, being limited to what I can eat at a given meal because of someone else's unwillingness to make to the compromise of splitting up - is never going to be acceptable. Not to me and it seems on this thread I am not the only one who would object.

So... the other people are supposed to compromise by splitting up, but you won't compromise by eating a food that isn't your first choice?

Nope, I won't. their preferences do not get to control anyone else. Splitting up means that they get their food choices and I get mine. At least one of the other people in the OP would not split up, they wanted what they wanted, and would whine about it if they did not get it. I don't travel to another country to eat at McD's - heck I don't eat at McD's more than a couple times a year at home - but I should do it a few times over the course of a vacation? Sorry, no. Every time I eat at a McD's takes away one more once in a life time experience from me - why does Ms Limited get to do that, simply because they can't order a Big Mac on their own.?

In this case I think you should not travel with someone like that.

Why does your preference for local fare get to make your (I assume) friend eat alone throughout the entire trip. It boggles me that you don't see you're taking the exact same stance on the opposite end of the spectrum. I think in most reasonable circumstances, all sides should compromise some.

If I take food out of the equation and make it about two friends vacationing, one who likes excursions an one who likes to lay on the beach. If one's aversion to the other type of activity was so strong, they should not vacation together. But if they do vacation together, both should compromise so that both get experiences they enjoy. Go on an excursion one day, lay on the beach the next.

Because they can make a choice for themselves, they do not get to make choices for anyone else. They are making the choice to limit themselves - are also making the choice to eat alone. But just because they want company, their choice of what to put in their stomachs does not supersede mine. Especially when their only acceptable choice is something I can get at home.

Because they can make a choice for themselves, they do not get to make choices for anyone else. They are making the choice to limit themselves - are also making the choice to eat alone. But just because they want company, their choice of what to put in their stomachs does not supersede mine. Especially when their only acceptable choice is something I can get at home.

It certainly is their choice. As is it is your choice to be unwilling to compromise or accommodate a friend.

Because they can make a choice for themselves, they do not get to make choices for anyone else. They are making the choice to limit themselves - are also making the choice to eat alone. But just because they want company, their choice of what to put in their stomachs does not supersede mine. Especially when their only acceptable choice is something I can get at home.

It certainly is their choice. As is it is your choice to be unwilling to compromise or accommodate a friend.

Seems to me that only one side of the equation is expected to be accommodating. The ones who are limiting themselves seem to be being given a pass.

Because they can make a choice for themselves, they do not get to make choices for anyone else. They are making the choice to limit themselves - are also making the choice to eat alone. But just because they want company, their choice of what to put in their stomachs does not supersede mine. Especially when their only acceptable choice is something I can get at home.

It certainly is their choice. As is it is your choice to be unwilling to compromise or accommodate a friend.

Seems to me that only one side of the equation is expected to be accommodating. The ones who are limiting themselves seem to be being given a pass.

Because they can make a choice for themselves, they do not get to make choices for anyone else. They are making the choice to limit themselves - are also making the choice to eat alone. But just because they want company, their choice of what to put in their stomachs does not supersede mine. Especially when their only acceptable choice is something I can get at home.

It certainly is their choice. As is it is your choice to be unwilling to compromise or accommodate a friend.

Seems to me that only one side of the equation is expected to be accommodating. The ones who are limiting themselves seem to be being given a pass.

I have not seen one single person on this thread say that picky eaters should be given a pass. However, you are the only one I've seen that won't accommodate the other side even once.

Because they can make a choice for themselves, they do not get to make choices for anyone else. They are making the choice to limit themselves - are also making the choice to eat alone. But just because they want company, their choice of what to put in their stomachs does not supersede mine. Especially when their only acceptable choice is something I can get at home.

It certainly is their choice. As is it is your choice to be unwilling to compromise or accommodate a friend.

Seems to me that only one side of the equation is expected to be accommodating. The ones who are limiting themselves seem to be being given a pass.

Where did you get that from?The suggestion of McD's was "a few times", which means the other times the picky eater would be going to the local-fare eateries.Which means both sides would be accommodating each other.

Going to McDonald's (and Pizza Hut) in other countries is an interesting experience. They have food that's not available in the US. Food seems fresher too (at least in Asia) because there's so many competition.

Like a PP, eating local food is great, but once in a while I just crave fast food in the middle of it all.

Yup! the Pizza Hut in India was really yummy and the staff did a Bhangra Birthday dance to celebrate another table. I wasn't thrilled about having to eat there at first, but it ended up being almost another sightseeing experience lol

I see Snowdragon's point. Also splitting up doesn't mean eating alone. I will not eat in several American Fast Food places because either a) I've had allergic reactions to their food or b) I don't get a dependable answer to my allergy questions. Some of my family love these places. We often "split up" go to places we like and meet up at a park to eat together.

I had 2 nasty experiences traveling with school groups being dragged into American fast food places instead of eating local matched with eating local being having haggis when there were more in the middle choices available. That made me decide that when I travel in the future any companions and I will have serious conversations about how we want to travel including eating.

I want to be adventurous - but I also have "food can kill you or make you feel that death would be better than this" issues. So I get the picky eater's point of view also. BIL is a foody in some ways. Sis is great about finding places he gets what he enjoys and I get to start in a safe place and expand what I eat. I've also been trying food from places that don't use peanuts and shell fish. That eliminates death and most of the death would be better situations.

I don't know, i'm not a fan of the golden arches, but if i were traveling with friends, and *everyone* was being reasonable, I would trade off a few fast food meals if they would go for a few adventurous/local/ethnic. or at least, if they would sit with me in Chez LocalEthnic, I would sit in GoldenArches.

As Thipu and others pointed out, not everyone is *just* picky- sometimes there are religious/health/ethical reasons for not eating X or Y. If someone is being SS about it, that is one thing. But if everyone is being considerate and reasonable - then yes, I would trade a few Golden Arches/Pizza etc for a few Local/Ethnic

I think it comes down to different definitions of a reasonable trade.

I wouldn't consider eating at McDonalds a reasonable trade for eating at Chez LocalEthnic on vacation. I *would* trade eating at McDonalds for dinner at the local night market with no knowledge of the local language, or a dinner at a restaurant specializing in offal.

(Mind you, I wouldn't actually expect a difficult eater to go anywhere near a local nightmarket meal. That would probably be a good point for us to split up and have them go to McDonalds.).

If I'm somewhere for an extended period, going to Pizza Hut or McDonalds can be entertaining. But on a short trip, seeing what the local version of McDonalds hamburgers is is pretty low on my priority list, compared to all the other options.

I think someone can either say 'I don't want to split up' or 'I don't want to eat there', but not both. If someone's going to absolutely refuse to go somewhere ever, be it Local Place or McDonald's, they can't also specify 'don't leave me'. If neither party wants to split up, then the only option seems to be, they both go to the place the other wants and perhaps have a drink while their friend eats.

Splitting who chooses the restaurants might work for some people, but not always, if there is one or more parties who won't/can't eat at some places. I would be really unhappy giving up half my dinners to eat at a fast food place while on vacation, and equally someone who doesn't want to eat non-Western food isn't going to be very happy to get dragged to local places half the time.